President Barack Obama and his sycophants aren’t pulling any punches while they attack our Second Amendment rights.

It’s about time we started fighting back and playing for keeps.

Liberals have cowed down too many of our supposedly conservative leaders. Instead of standing strong for our right to bear arms, they’re giving into the emotional whirlwind of the leftist PR storm for gun control.

It’s abundantly clear by now that it’s up to We the People to stand up and make our elected officials do their duty, and protect the Constitution.

That’s why we’ve brought together a broad coalition of grassroots conservative groups who are ready and willing to take on the Obama Machine, go toe-to-toe with establishment “moderates,” and repudiate the lies and misinformation spread by the liberal media.

We at Political Media, along with coalition members the Second Amendment Foundation, Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Special Operations Speaks, Revolution SuperPAC, Citizens and Country, Social Security Institute, Committee to Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano, Conservative Action Alerts, Women Warriors PAC, and Conservative Action Fund are joining together to make a clear statement against the gun grabbing schemes of the left.

We’ve declared January 19th – two days before Obama’s Inauguration – to be Gun Appreciation Day. And we’re urging Americans nationwide to show their support for gun ownership.

We need every patriotic American to turn out en masse at gun stores, gun ranges, and gun shows from coast to coast.

The Obama Administration has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people. If the American people don’t fight back now, Obama will gut our Second Amendment rights – just as he deviously gutted the First with Obamacare.

Make sure that the crooks in this Administration know that we won’t take this laying down. If you are at all able, block off some time on the 19th and take part in Gun Appreciate Day. Invite your family, friends, and neighbors, too – anyone who believes in our Founder’s views on the Second Amendment needs to be there. I hope you’ll join the movement as people form lines “around the block” at gun stores, gun counters, gun shows, and gun ranges to protest the Obama administration’s assault on gun rights.

We have never had a president who so callously disregards the Constitution, Congress, the courts, and the will of the American people.

And that’s why this outpouring of public support is so important for our constitutional safeguards to keep and bear arms. If, as this president claims, the American people are at risk from murderous rampagers, the logical solution is to extend our rights to protect ourselves with guns, not present a docile target.

Will you commit to standing up for the founding principles of our nation?

Are you willing to take action for the sake of our God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution?

Now more than ever, America needs dedicated patriots like you. For the sake of our Republic, please don’t leave the call unanswered.

25 Million Americans can’t all be wrong. That is the conservative estimate on the number of people who have been buying up and stockpiling weapons in the last four years. These are not criminals, they are law-abiding citizens who believe that civil war is coming to America and they must be prepared to defend their homes and their families – and – their country. All have a deep love for the freedoms instilled upon us by our Founding Fathers and a strong willingness to defend those rights. Our history is filled with stories about Patrick Henry of the American Revolution who famously declared: “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country” when the British executed him. But that was then and this is now. It may be interesting to note that, according to the web site Sipsey Street Irregulars, that only 3% of Americans actively supported the American Revolution against the British. So there is much truth to be learned in the famous words of Winston Churchill who said of the Royal Air Force in WWII, “Never was so much owed by so many to so few.” Americans today are totally in debt to those 3%’s who fought for and died for our freedom and independence.

Today, in our technological era with instant texting and tweets and emails and blogs, we enjoy the greatest sense of communication than ever before. So what will happen when the tyranny we have been forewarned about finally arrives. Will we get a message warning us or will the government already have shut down the Internet and blocked the cell towers? Who will become the first patriot to die in defense of his freedom? Will we ever know the answer and will the truth ever be told in the news media? Has this already happened but the story was twisted and the truth covered over with lies? Lets look at a hypothetical situation that could happen anywhere in America today but most likely would be in some small town.

I live in a very quiet neighborhood that has almost no crime to speak of. It is so quiet that the local police only seem to make an appearance here a few times a week when a patrol car drives slowly down the street. Like a lot of people I do not know most of my neighbors so I cannot verify their reputations with the local authorities but based upon the lack of a police presence I must conclude that we have no criminal element here.

So one day, I look out my window and see a large number of police cars with blinking lights and even a heavily armed SWAT team converging on a house a few doors away from me. What am I to think? I hear gunfire and then silence and then hours later calm is restored. The news media reports a domestic disturbance with one fatality resulting from shots returned by the police. Or maybe even a standoff with the homeowner committing suicide.

Was this the truth or was someone resisting a raid to confiscate their weapons or just another perceived home invasion that was met with resistance? There have been stories reported about a tactic called Swatting where an anonymous phone call is made to 911 and the caller says, “I have shot my wife.” The call is a vicious prank with the purpose of having a SWAT team invade someone’s home to cause them extreme duress. The innocent homeowner is not aware of this when several armed people break down their front door and storm into their homes. If they were lucky enough to be unable to defend themselves then after enduring hours of questioning with guns pointed at them while they and their children are restrained with handcuffs then the police might admit they made a mistake and simply leave. But if the homeowner was able to get his or her hand on a gun and try to defend themselves from the unknown threat that forced their way in – the outcome would be entirely different.

It has been surmised that the Federal government may institute an unconstitutional ban on the possession and ownership of all guns and would first demand that every citizen turn them in or face arrest. Recent talk suggests that Barack Hussein Obama, flush with arrogant egotism over his fiscal cliff victory may decide to create this ban with an Executive Order – thus by-passing our Congressional representatives. Many patriots have fully expected this to happen and have stated they would not comply with such rules under any conditions. After a time the government would be expected to conduct house to house searches and forcibly remove any weapons they found and probably the occupants, as well. We know that FEMA has already constructed detention centers around the country. We know that the last two sessions of Congress approved provisions in the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, to give Obama the authority to arrest and detain without trial anyone suspected of terrorism and that within the lexicon of the Dept. of Homeland Security, persons suspected of terrorism include conservatives who support the Second Amendment, Pro-Life and third-party candidates. The government knows who they are because these patriots all have bumper stickers on their cars that say so. We know the government has taken on new self-proclaimed authorities through the Patriot Act that supposedly supersede our Bill of Rights without bothering to pass amendments to the Constitution as required. So the first cases of a SWAT team invasion in your neighborhood would likely be overlooked. Especially if conducted by local police or Sheriffs. Of course if the National Guard sent an armed personnel carrier or a tank down your street it may set off some alarms. What about the second or third time it happened? What if your entire neighborhood was occupied by an army and everyone ordered to leave their homes while the authorities conducted their searches? When and where would neighbors begin to stand up to defend neighbors?

The history of the rise of the Third Reich in Nazi Germany describes eye witness accounts of Gestapo agents rounding up the Jews with virtually no resistance. People just stood by and watched their neighbors being dragged away. Until the Gestapo came for them. As long as American citizens possess weapons to defend themselves our chances of a tyrant rising up in America are slim and that is the true purpose of the Second Amendment. And that is the only reason why a tyrannical government would demand the registration and confiscation of privately owned guns. Not for public safety but to ensure their own safety from an enraged public.

On the day that Patrick Henry was hanged, his execution was conducted in a public place and most likely to set an example to the rest of the community. In the history books tyrants and dictators have gone to the extremes of mass executions to set similar examples against resistance. While it is unlikely something like that would ever take place on American soil with American soldiers or American law enforcement, the result of any massive civil unrest against a tyrannical government could lead to a United Nations Peacekeeping Force being brought in to quell the disturbances. The U.N. has the ability to marshal forces from every third-world country to wear their colors and these armies are most definitely not as civilized as we are. At that point the revolution will be well under way.

American Patriots will not willingly surrender their weapons but how they intend to resist or when they will begin is not very clear. The future that lies ahead has not been written.

Idaho, Montana and Texas are making a stand on guns. As a resident of Idaho, a proud gun rights state, may I just say we will fight for our Second Amendment rights. The government shall not pass (gratuitous Lord of the Rings quote).

The Blaze: There’s a widely-unknown provision in the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) — legislative wording that is capturing attention in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Pushed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a newly-noticed regulation that was placed deep within the bill back in 2010, among other things, bans doctors from documenting patients’ answers to questions that focus upon guns.

The Washington Post first reported on Dec. 30 about the presence of this controversial wording. Under a section with the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights,” the NRA-advocated wording is nestled deep within the law. The Post called the inclusion, “a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.”

As the outlet also noted, it was in the final stretch of the debate over Obama’s health care legislation that the NRA successfully pushed to insert this language. Below, see the portions of the Affordable Care Act that include mentions of firearms and the parameters through which doctors must operate in questioning patients (read the entire health care bill here):

On Tuesday, CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta spoke on-air with “Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer. The two discussed how the gun provision made its way into health care legislation, while also explaining portions of the text for viewers.

Gupta noted that the initiative to have the wording included during the contentious health care debate was rooted in the NRA’s stance that patients should not be penalized or discriminated against for owning firearms. As can be seen from the above portion of the legislation, while doctors are not banned from asking about guns, they are forbidden from documenting the information and using it for research purposes.

In addition to gun-owner information and how it must be handled by doctors, the text also notes that the law cannot be used to keep and maintain records of individuals’ firearm possession, nor can it be used to track ammunition. Additionally, the language deals with the price of health care coverage, noting that cost cannot be impacted by the possession or ownership of guns, the Post also reported.

Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, the presence of this provision has gained some press, with select politicians and medical groups taking a stand against it. Advocates are worried that research and medical care could suffer as a result of the wording; some are even pushing the Obama administration to consider changes to the text in light of recent events and an impending battle over new gun control legislation.

The Post has more about the ongoing battle between the NRA and physicians and advocates who stand opposed to the language inserted into the Affordable Care legislation:

NRA officials say they requested the provision out of concern that insurance companies could use such data to raise premiums on gun owners. The measure’s supporters in the Senate say they did not intend to interfere with the work of doctors or researchers.

But physician groups and researchers see the provision as part of a decades-long strategy by the gun lobby to choke off federal support for studies of firearms violence.

The research restrictions began in the 1990s, when the NRA urged Congress to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division that studied gun violence. In 1996, Congress sharply limited the agency’s ability to fund that type of research.

This is extremely important at this time with the shocker information recently released that there is now a ‘Vaccine’ that prevents gun violence and the implications of the use of that vaccine in today’s control frenzy climate coming from the White House and progressive liberals in general!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi take part in a joint Senate and House session to count of the Electoral College votes for the 2012 presidential election at the Capitol Hill in Washington on January 4, 2013. US President Barack Obama was officially declared the winner of 2012 presidential election after the counting session– a quaint formality, perhaps, but constitutionally required. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Just as interesting as the debate over the provision, itself, is the notion that it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), an NRA-supporter, who added the wording to the bill back in 2010. While a spokesperson for Reid told the Post that the leader never spoke with the NRA about the wording and that he did not believe that “it changed gun laws in any way,” that hasn’t stopped critics from wondering why Reid so staunchly supported the measure.

The language was purportedly added to stem off criticism from the NRA that could have railroaded, delayed or prevented the controversial health care bill from passing. Also, the wording was placed deep within the bill in an effort to convince people not to embrace so-called conspiracy theories about Obamacare — mainly that the legislation would be used to keep and maintain a massive gun-ownership database. Once the language was added, the NRA reportedly remained neutral regarding passage of the law.

While Reid has been a gun rights advocate for quite some time, the politician may be having a change of heart in the wake of recent shootings and controversy surrounding this language. An adviser who spoke off-the-record, recently told CNN that the senator is “in a different place than he was in 2010″ when it comes to firearms.

The major media do not want to cover the issue of marijuana causing mental illness. But because a prominent Democrat, Patrick Kennedy, has raised it, the media have nowhere left to hide. The news that he says marijuana “Destroys the brain and expedites psychosis” was big news and a big headline in The Washington Post.

Kennedy fought alcoholism and an addiction to prescription drugs and is now taking on the marijuana lobby, while getting verbal abuse from the potheads in return. The Marijuana Policy Project calls his new group, SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana), the “new threat” and “a dangerous, new national anti-marijuana organization.”

The group’s website features such stories as:

Marijuana use linked with significant IQ loss

Medical marijuana laws hurt kids, doctor says

Legalize pot? No, reform laws

Kennedy, the younger son of Edward M. Kennedy and a former member of Congress from Rhode Island, was strong and direct, telling the Post, “Marijuana destroys the brain and expedites psychosis. It’s just overall a very dangerous drug.”

The paper said Kennedy wants “to shift the debate from legalization to prevention and treatment—despite what appears to be a growing social acceptance of the drug.”

That “growing social acceptance” is being driven by the drug-friendly media, the pro-drug entertainment industry, and a dope lobby led by the Drug Policy Alliance that is mostly funded by billionaires such as George Soros.

Kennedy’s involvement follows other experts who have been discussing marijuana’s threat. Mental health expert Clayton Cramer tells Accuracy in Media, “The studies that have been done on the subject clearly demonstrate not just a correlation between mental illness and marijuana use, but a causal connection.”

However, the pro-marijuana movement is on the move, with the state of Oregon sinking so low as to authorize the use of “medical marijuana” for a 7-year-old child with leukemia. The child’s father, who is divorced from the girl’s mother, reported the marijuana use to child welfare officials and said that he found the little girl “stoned out of her mind.”

The prospect of Patrick Kennedy’s involvement gives hope to those who believe the U.S. has been surrendering the war on drugs.

The dope lobby never expected a certified liberal—and the son of a liberal icon—to lead a new charge against them.

SAM is a bipartisan group, chaired by Kennedy, which includes George W. Bush’s former speechwriter and Daily Beast columnist David Frum, Harvard Professor Sharon Levy, Kevin Sabet, and other public health professionals and lawmakers.

Levy authored a resolution for the American Academy of Pediatrics opposing the use of “medical marijuana” in children, while Sabet served in the Obama Administration as Senior Advisor at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Sabet has debated Ethan Nadelmann of the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance.

On its website, Frum argues against marijuana legalization. Equally significant, SAM talks about where marijuana legalization is heading—a takeover by the tobacco industry, which has openly speculated about marijuana becoming an “alternative product line.”

SAM declares, “We know if it’s legalized, marijuana will be commercialized, too. A commercial marijuana industry will act just as the tobacco industry acts. Big Tobacco may even take over a marijuana industry once it’s up and running.”

Since tobacco companies lied to America for more than a century about the dangers of smoking, SAM suggests the truth about marijuana will also be concealed by the commercial and other special interests eager to make money from the product.

In fact, left-wing British journalist Patrick Cockburn has already written about a “tobacco moment” for marijuana consisting of the connection between marijuana use and psychotic episodes that is comparable to the scientific recognition that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer and other illnesses. Cockburn wrote a series of blockbuster articles in the British media on how his own son went insane smoking marijuana.

Clayton Cramer, author of My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill, says that the damage is being done through “the active promotion of marijuana use, especially among young people, who are the greatest risk of marijuana inducing schizophrenia.”

In addition to mental illness, a recent international study found a link between “persistent cannabis use and neuropsychological decline.” In other words, marijuana causes damage to intelligence, memory and attention.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].